IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags abortion issues , abortion laws , Texas issues

Reply
Old 4th March 2016, 06:26 AM   #361
elbe
Illuminator
 
elbe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 4,983
Originally Posted by marplots View Post
What ended up happening?
It sounded like the issue was still pending in the state legislature.
__________________
"Take the weakest thing in you and beat the bastards with it"
realityisnotadditive... blog... thingy...
elbe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th March 2016, 06:30 AM   #362
marplots
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 29,167
Originally Posted by Sherkeu View Post
You don't need any analogies to see the intent of this law.

A surgical abortion is the same procedure a woman would get if she was being treated for endometriosis, fibroid tumor, molar pregnancy, polyps, or heavy bleeding.
A d&c.
It's a very safe, low-risk procedure. For many uterine conditions.

With this law, when surgery is for the purpose of abortion, it requires all these extra safety requirements.
When it's for another reason, it doesn't.
Same procedure!

It would make more sense that the "non-abortion" uterine procedures have more risk since many of those women are much older and/or have a hysteroscopy at the same time.

But I understand if you guys want to talk about guns and stuff.
Are the procedures you list generally done at clinics or hospitals? (I don't know, but I'm interested in the parallel you draw.)
marplots is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th March 2016, 03:36 PM   #363
KDLarsen
Illuminator
 
KDLarsen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 4,617
Speaking of analogies, I think Justice Ginsburg made the best one:
Why single out abortion when other procedures, like colonoscopies and liposuctions, pose an exponentially higher safety risk?
KDLarsen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th March 2016, 06:46 PM   #364
Sherkeu
Master Poster
 
Sherkeu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Disneyland
Posts: 2,623
Originally Posted by marplots View Post
Are the procedures you list generally done at clinics or hospitals? (I don't know, but I'm interested in the parallel you draw.)
These procedures can be done in a doctors office, outpatient clinic, or hospital.

Hospitals are like 10x the cost so I imagine they are required by emergency, patient choice, or the doctor deems the patient higher risk. I have no idea what the actual numbers are though.

You can google ob/gyn offices anywhere in TX and see that many of them provide D&C at the office.
You will also see they can do surgery with general anesthesia.
They are also allowed to do laparoscopic surgery, uterine ablation (turns the lining of the whole uterus into scar tissue), tubal ligation, and use lasers to remove cancerous cervical cells (LEET).
It's very common.

Fertility centers in TX do much of the above as well in their offices.
Sherkeu is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th March 2016, 06:33 AM   #365
marplots
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 29,167
Originally Posted by Sherkeu View Post
These procedures can be done in a doctors office, outpatient clinic, or hospital.

Hospitals are like 10x the cost so I imagine they are required by emergency, patient choice, or the doctor deems the patient higher risk. I have no idea what the actual numbers are though.

You can google ob/gyn offices anywhere in TX and see that many of them provide D&C at the office.
You will also see they can do surgery with general anesthesia.
They are also allowed to do laparoscopic surgery, uterine ablation (turns the lining of the whole uterus into scar tissue), tubal ligation, and use lasers to remove cancerous cervical cells (LEET).
It's very common.

Fertility centers in TX do much of the above as well in their offices.
IF that's the case, then I can see two arguments from the Texas legislator side. First, if patients have a choice between a clinic and a hospital for care, then the patient can decide where to get the procedure done. But this is not a choice with an abortion if hospitals are unwilling to do them. Second, they could respond that they will be examining these other procedures and may pass similar legislation but haven't yet got to it.

Overall, the tu quoque won't work though, since abortion can be evaluated as a standalone item. Otherwise (from the anti-abortion point of view) it's making the perfect the enemy of the good.
marplots is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th March 2016, 07:28 AM   #366
Tero
Master Poster
 
Tero's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: North American prairie
Posts: 2,307
It's more of a cost issue. The insurance won't pay for abortion for the poor folks or their deductible is so high that they essentially pay for the whole thing.

Quote:
We found cash or self-pay first-trimester surgical abortion fees generally range from around $300 to $1,200.
http://clearhealthcosts.com/blog/201...raft-theresas/

If you have to go out of state, there are travel costs.
__________________
The republicans are here to save us from government/socialism. Which would like to give us healthcare. But that would make us weak. And generate a lot of old people.

Politics blog: https://esapolitics.blogspot.com/
Tero is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th March 2016, 03:52 PM   #367
Sherkeu
Master Poster
 
Sherkeu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Disneyland
Posts: 2,623
Originally Posted by marplots View Post
IF that's the case, then I can see two arguments from the Texas legislator side. First, if patients have a choice between a clinic and a hospital for care, then the patient can decide where to get the procedure done. But this is not a choice with an abortion if hospitals are unwilling to do them. Second, they could respond that they will be examining these other procedures and may pass similar legislation but haven't yet got to it.

Overall, the tu quoque won't work though, since abortion can be evaluated as a standalone item. Otherwise (from the anti-abortion point of view) it's making the perfect the enemy of the good.
Do you think a hospital is safer? Do you think having a doctor use hospital equipment and personnel he isn't familiar with, without any other risk factor, is really safer?

The Texas Solicitor Keller, in answering the SC questions, could not document for the record any past cases where this law would be 'safer' for the women of Texas.
How many women were affected because the doctor didn't have admitting privileges? It seems none were. Not one case could be found.

Breyer stated:"What is the benefit to the woman of a procedure that is going to cure a problem of which there is not one single instance in the nation?"

As to pt 2: If they want to apply these regulations across the board, they can do that at some future date. They should get some evidence of risk first to make sensible improvements.
I bet if they did pass new laws on that, it would not involve shutting down colonoscopy centers immediately with some new safety requirement of 8ft hallways. Like any sensible law requiring time and investment, it would have a multi-year plan to go into full effect. I'll take bets on it!

This law couldnt be clearer on intent.
It wants to unconstitutionally burden a womans' right to abortion services by targeting abortion clinics with undue restrictions, specifically, immediately, and separately from other outpatient surgical facilities, to the point they have to operate at tremendous costs or close immediately, as part of a pro-life agenda.

I am embarrassed for the Texas SG Keller to have gone all the way to the SCOTUS with only anecdotes and unsupported generalizations in his pocket. Before Scalia's death, perhaps he assumed he didn't need to be very clever.
Sherkeu is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th March 2016, 04:58 PM   #368
newyorkguy
Penultimate Amazing
 
newyorkguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: NY
Posts: 11,810
As usual, Kennedy is supposed to be the pivotal Justice. If he decides the law passes Constitutional muster -- that it is not essentially aimed at limiting the number of abortions (for political reasons) -- the Court will probably tie 4-4 and the lower court's ruling (allowing the law to stand) will probably prevail.
newyorkguy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th March 2016, 06:24 PM   #369
marplots
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 29,167
Originally Posted by Sherkeu View Post
Do you think a hospital is safer? Do you think having a doctor use hospital equipment and personnel he isn't familiar with, without any other risk factor, is really safer?
It doesn't matter. All that matters is that Texas legislators believe it is safer.

As to pt 2: If they want to apply these regulations across the board, they can do that at some future date. They should get some evidence of risk first to make sensible improvements. [/quote]

Yes, they could. But the requirement for evidence is pretty loose. I wouldn't put it past them to stack a hearing with a couple doctors who agree with them already. If they couldn't find doctors, then a couple academics from the local religious university would do just as well.

Originally Posted by Sherkeu View Post
This law couldnt be clearer on intent.
It wants to unconstitutionally burden a womans' right to abortion services by targeting abortion clinics with undue restrictions, specifically, immediately, and separately from other outpatient surgical facilities, to the point they have to operate at tremendous costs or close immediately, as part of a pro-life agenda.
The unconstitutionality remains to be determined by the court. That's the point of having a Supreme Court. I'm willing to accept their decision - one way or the other - as authoritative. Are you?
marplots is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th March 2016, 07:14 PM   #370
newyorkguy
Penultimate Amazing
 
newyorkguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: NY
Posts: 11,810
It doesn't matter if it's not safer it only matters that the Texas legislators think it's safer. Echoes of Scalia: It doesn't matter if the legislators are introducing Christian religious doctrine into science classes it only matters that the legislators don't think that's what they're doing.

Again, I don't see how any reasonable person can look at all the evidence and not see that this is about limiting access to abortion in places that don't think abortion should be legal in the first place. Below is a quote from an anti-abortion group that wants a total ban on abortion. They are unhappy with the Pro-lifers who foster and support strategies limiting abortion such as the Texas law currently before the Supreme Court:

Quote:
If you try to remember recent Pro-Life activities since the early 1990s you will find one shocking fact. Most, if not all, legislative/political activity has centered around not ending abortion once and for all but in only ‘limiting abortion.’... The Pro-Life Movement, for the past 20 years, has been focused mainly on “Limiting Abortion” – a strategy that can never end legalized abortion. Link
This is from US News & World Report:
Quote:
Anti-abortion proponents are making progress. On Tuesday, the 5th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals upheld key parts of a Texas law that could soon close about half of the remaining abortion clinics in the state. (Over half have already been shuttered there since 2012.)

Noah Feldman at Bloomberg View says the law stands a fair chance of remaining intact if it reaches the Supreme Court. Abortion is "subject to death by a thousand cuts," he writes, thanks to the court's 1992 decision in Planned Parenthood v. Casey. The "ad-hoc" language in that ruling "invited states to pass laws that were not formally directed at limiting abortion, but that incidentally made abortion harder to come by," notes Feldman. In other words, laws like Texas's HB2.

Casey created "a sliding scale" for judges to decide the constitutionality of abortion restrictions, and Justice Anthony Kennedy (and his politics) will likely tip that scale if the issue comes before the court. Says Feldman, "If Kennedy judges that the politics of abortion have moved in the direction of making it harder to get abortions in practice while preserving the right in principle, he might well uphold the Texas law." Link
newyorkguy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th March 2016, 08:33 PM   #371
Sherkeu
Master Poster
 
Sherkeu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Disneyland
Posts: 2,623
Originally Posted by marplots View Post
The unconstitutionality remains to be determined by the court. That's the point of having a Supreme Court. I'm willing to accept their decision - one way or the other - as authoritative. Are you?
Absoutely! Justices are supposed to only interpret the current law in light of constitutional rights. If they think Texas has the right to make these restrictions, then that is law of the land.

When they blocked Texas' law last June there were 4 public dissents. Yesterday, they blocked a similar Louisiana law with only 1 public dissent - Judge Thomas. This looks like the laws' chances aren't so good.

I think they will either make a final ruling against (setting a national precedent), or remand it back to Texas and hear it next year or the year after.
Sherkeu is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th March 2016, 11:08 PM   #372
thaiboxerken
Penultimate Amazing
 
thaiboxerken's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 31,823
Originally Posted by marplots View Post
IF that's the case, then I can see two arguments from the Texas legislator side. First, if patients have a choice between a clinic and a hospital for care, then the patient can decide where to get the procedure done. But this is not a choice with an abortion if hospitals are unwilling to do them. Second, they could respond that they will be examining these other procedures and may pass similar legislation but haven't yet got to it.

Overall, the tu quoque won't work though, since abortion can be evaluated as a standalone item. Otherwise (from the anti-abortion point of view) it's making the perfect the enemy of the good.
You are arguing that these legislators made these laws in good faith (the safety of women.) This is about reducing access to abortion services.
__________________
1. He'd never do that. 2. Okay but he's not currently doing it. 3. Okay but he's not currently technically doing it. 4. Okay but everyone does it. 5. He's doing it, we can't stop him, no point in complaining about it. 6. We all knew he was going to do it which... makes it okay somehow. 7. It's perfectly fine that's he's doing it.
thaiboxerken is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th March 2016, 11:39 PM   #373
marplots
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 29,167
Originally Posted by thaiboxerken View Post
You are arguing that these legislators made these laws in good faith (the safety of women.) This is about reducing access to abortion services.
I don't think it matters. Let me see if I can break it down.

1) The right to an abortion is not a specific right in the Constitution, but a derived right by way of a Supreme Court decision. This means, in part, that it has more wiggle-room than more clearly delineated rights. We might look at how the commerce clause has been extended for examples.

2) Even those rights which are laid out more-or-less "as written," like the right to keep and bear arms, can still be regulated and have been.

3) The question then isn't between a complete "hands off" abortion and a ban, but how far legislators may restrict abortion services.

4) #3 does not depend on intent or motivation, merely on outcome. If I'm correct in this, the arguments about, "this is for women's health" vs. "this is a political ploy" are moot.

5) Texas is able, in the normal course of legislative affairs, to regulate the practice of medicine in Texas.

I think it's fine to assert that legislators are being sneaky bastards and attempting to use a loophole to shape the way abortions are provided in Texas. But so what? Shouldn't Texans be allowed to use the rules, whatever those rules turn out to be (by way of the Supreme Court) to accomplish the objectives they feel are important?

Consider that we already accept the same "flavor" of rules when it comes to abortions - I am not licensed to practice medicine in Texas. It would be illegal for me to offer abortion services from the back of my van there. I cannot claim that disallowing my "ready to go coat hanger" method unfairly restricts abortion, nor do I have to require Texas to demonstrate that I am endangering women, or any other thing. I am not licensed to practice medicine. Performing an abortion requires such a license. Case closed. It doesn't matter if Texas requires a medical license because they want to minimize abortions - we accept they have the duty to regulate the practice of medicine in their state.

Last edited by marplots; 5th March 2016 at 11:41 PM.
marplots is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th March 2016, 11:44 PM   #374
thaiboxerken
Penultimate Amazing
 
thaiboxerken's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 31,823
Texans should not be allowed to restrict abortions.
__________________
1. He'd never do that. 2. Okay but he's not currently doing it. 3. Okay but he's not currently technically doing it. 4. Okay but everyone does it. 5. He's doing it, we can't stop him, no point in complaining about it. 6. We all knew he was going to do it which... makes it okay somehow. 7. It's perfectly fine that's he's doing it.
thaiboxerken is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th March 2016, 11:54 PM   #375
marplots
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 29,167
Originally Posted by thaiboxerken View Post
Texans should not be allowed to restrict abortions.
Why not? Every other state restricts them.

This is from Planned Parenthood:
"Different states have different laws about how late in a pregnancy a woman can get an abortion. These laws apply to abortion providers within a given state, so it doesn’t matter what state the patient lives in – just the state the abortion is happening in. Across the board, abortions are very infrequently performed anywhere after the 24th week of pregnancy, and at that point are usually only done for health reasons."

Last edited by marplots; 5th March 2016 at 11:57 PM.
marplots is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th March 2016, 11:59 PM   #376
thaiboxerken
Penultimate Amazing
 
thaiboxerken's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 31,823
Originally Posted by marplots View Post
Why not? Every other state restricts them.
Other states should not be able to restrict abortion either.
__________________
1. He'd never do that. 2. Okay but he's not currently doing it. 3. Okay but he's not currently technically doing it. 4. Okay but everyone does it. 5. He's doing it, we can't stop him, no point in complaining about it. 6. We all knew he was going to do it which... makes it okay somehow. 7. It's perfectly fine that's he's doing it.
thaiboxerken is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th March 2016, 01:00 AM   #377
beren
Graduate Poster
 
beren's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Dallas, Tx
Posts: 1,245
Originally Posted by marplots View Post
I don't think it matters. Let me see if I can break it down.

1) The right to an abortion is not a specific right in the Constitution, but a derived right by way of a Supreme Court decision. This means, in part, that it has more wiggle-room than more clearly delineated rights. We might look at how the commerce clause has been extended for examples.

2) Even those rights which are laid out more-or-less "as written," like the right to keep and bear arms, can still be regulated and have been.

3) The question then isn't between a complete "hands off" abortion and a ban, but how far legislators may restrict abortion services.

4) #3 does not depend on intent or motivation, merely on outcome. If I'm correct in this, the arguments about, "this is for women's health" vs. "this is a political ploy" are moot.

5) Texas is able, in the normal course of legislative affairs, to regulate the practice of medicine in Texas.

I think it's fine to assert that legislators are being sneaky bastards and attempting to use a loophole to shape the way abortions are provided in Texas. But so what? Shouldn't Texans be allowed to use the rules, whatever those rules turn out to be (by way of the Supreme Court) to accomplish the objectives they feel are important?

Consider that we already accept the same "flavor" of rules when it comes to abortions - I am not licensed to practice medicine in Texas. It would be illegal for me to offer abortion services from the back of my van there. I cannot claim that disallowing my "ready to go coat hanger" method unfairly restricts abortion, nor do I have to require Texas to demonstrate that I am endangering women, or any other thing. I am not licensed to practice medicine. Performing an abortion requires such a license. Case closed. It doesn't matter if Texas requires a medical license because they want to minimize abortions - we accept they have the duty to regulate the practice of medicine in their state.
Is the difference between "someone performing an abortion should be a doctor" and "someone performing an abortion needs wide hallways" list on you?

Do you think they are equally valid?

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk
__________________
There’s only four things you can be in life: sober, tipsy, drunk and hungover. Tipsy is the only one where you don’t cry when you’re doing it. ~ James Acaster
beren is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th March 2016, 01:52 AM   #378
thaiboxerken
Penultimate Amazing
 
thaiboxerken's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 31,823
http://samanthabee.com/episode/04-2/...n-texas-style/ #TBS #FullFrontalTBS

Samantha discusses these Texas laws on her show.
__________________
1. He'd never do that. 2. Okay but he's not currently doing it. 3. Okay but he's not currently technically doing it. 4. Okay but everyone does it. 5. He's doing it, we can't stop him, no point in complaining about it. 6. We all knew he was going to do it which... makes it okay somehow. 7. It's perfectly fine that's he's doing it.
thaiboxerken is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th March 2016, 07:34 AM   #379
newyorkguy
Penultimate Amazing
 
newyorkguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: NY
Posts: 11,810
Originally Posted by marplots View Post
...But so what? Shouldn't Texans be allowed to use the rules, whatever those rules turn out to be (by way of the Supreme Court) to accomplish the objectives they feel are important?...
Should states be allowed to make rules that restrict people's Constitutionally protected rights if they feel said rules are important? No they not only shouldn't they can't. The burden is on the states to show that they are balancing their duty to protect the rights with regulations that are vital to protect public safety.

An example would be protections people have against unlawful searches and seizures. A bedrock principle is that the state does not have the right to stop you, even momentarily, to see if you might be breaking the law when the state has no reason to suspect you are. The state has the burden of reasonable suspicion.

Yet the Supreme Court has ruled that police have the right to establish sobriety checkpoints -- stopping motorists not because they are drunk but only to see if they MIGHT BE -- because of the large number of drunken driving accidents in the U.S. and the difficulty in finding drunk drivers. The Court ruled that this minimal incursion into people's protections against unlawful seizures was balanced by the state's duty to protect the public.

This is why the opponents of the Texas law are arguing the medical necessity of the HB2 law is less than compelling. Why they are arguing the law is unconstitutional because it specifically targets abortion while ignoring medical procedures that are very similar in nature. They are arguing that Texas did not pass the burden test.

It sounds like you are opposed to abortion or at best don't think it should be a protected right. That if states want to devise ways to chip away at those rights that's fine. But it's not fine. The state has a public safety burden but it can't use that burden as a subterfuge to restrict protected rights.
newyorkguy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th March 2016, 10:27 AM   #380
twinstead
Penultimate Amazing
 
twinstead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 12,374
It's because many people can't be objective about something they personally have strong feelings about and take other viewpoints into consideration. If Texas state legislators feel strongly that abortion is murder and should be outlawed, then work within the constitutional system and hope the majority of Americans eventually agree with you.

Otherwise, don't resort to what Texas is doing now. They're just being aholes about it
__________________
You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your INFORMED opinion. No one is entitled to be ignorant. -- Harlan Ellison

Last edited by twinstead; 6th March 2016 at 10:28 AM.
twinstead is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th March 2016, 11:01 AM   #381
marplots
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 29,167
Originally Posted by thaiboxerken View Post
Other states should not be able to restrict abortion either.
I don't think you can escape the rule-making. For example, if I wish to do an abortion on my teenaged daughter, without her consent, and such a thing is prohibited, that's a restriction on abortion. As soon as we set out to delineate what is allowed and what is not, we've already taken steps down the road.
marplots is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th March 2016, 11:05 AM   #382
marplots
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 29,167
Originally Posted by beren View Post
Is the difference between "someone performing an abortion should be a doctor" and "someone performing an abortion needs wide hallways" list on you?

Do you think they are equally valid?
They have the same basis for deriving their validity - our opinions on what constitutes a necessary restriction.

If you are going to rely on, "Well, it's obvious" then you are left with the question, "Why isn't it obvious to those who support the legislation?"

To make any headway, we'd need to find some principle everyone agrees to and then try to extend it to support our preferred outcome.
marplots is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th March 2016, 11:14 AM   #383
beren
Graduate Poster
 
beren's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Dallas, Tx
Posts: 1,245
Originally Posted by marplots View Post
They have the same basis for deriving their validity - our opinions on what constitutes a necessary restriction.

If you are going to rely on, "Well, it's obvious" then you are left with the question, "Why isn't it obvious to those who support the legislation?"

To make any headway, we'd need to find some principle everyone agrees to and then try to extend it to support our preferred outcome.
It is obvious to the supporters. That's why they support it.

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk
__________________
There’s only four things you can be in life: sober, tipsy, drunk and hungover. Tipsy is the only one where you don’t cry when you’re doing it. ~ James Acaster
beren is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th March 2016, 11:20 AM   #384
marplots
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 29,167
Originally Posted by newyorkguy View Post
Should states be allowed to make rules that restrict people's Constitutionally protected rights if they feel said rules are important? No they not only shouldn't they can't. The burden is on the states to show that they are balancing their duty to protect the rights with regulations that are vital to protect public safety.
Public safety is not the only rationale that can be used, is it? But further, an appeal to public safety in one spot can have consequences in another, not obviously related spot. I can, for example, require product labeling in an appeal to public safety (without actually demonstrating it improves safety), and thereby eliminate the ability of people to sell things they have been selling which cannot be so labeled, or only labeled at a prohibitive cost. In general, the cost to the provider is a secondary consideration.

Originally Posted by newyorkguy View Post
An example would be protections people have against unlawful searches and seizures. A bedrock principle is that the state does not have the right to stop you, even momentarily, to see if you might be breaking the law when the state has no reason to suspect you are. The state has the burden of reasonable suspicion.

Yet the Supreme Court has ruled that police have the right to establish sobriety checkpoints -- stopping motorists not because they are drunk but only to see if they MIGHT BE -- because of the large number of drunken driving accidents in the U.S. and the difficulty in finding drunk drivers. The Court ruled that this minimal incursion into people's protections against unlawful seizures was balanced by the state's duty to protect the public.
They have also ruled that customs agents may inspect without probable cause, that zoning and licensing agencies may do the same, and allow a thousand other "inspection" types as requirements for some activity or other.

Originally Posted by newyorkguy View Post
This is why the opponents of the Texas law are arguing the medical necessity of the HB2 law is less than compelling. Why they are arguing the law is unconstitutional because it specifically targets abortion while ignoring medical procedures that are very similar in nature. They are arguing that Texas did not pass the burden test.
Yes, I think I understand the argument.

Originally Posted by newyorkguy View Post
It sounds like you are opposed to abortion or at best don't think it should be a protected right. That if states want to devise ways to chip away at those rights that's fine. But it's not fine. The state has a public safety burden but it can't use that burden as a subterfuge to restrict protected rights.
I'm pro-choice. But the question here, for me, isn't simply about abortion, it's about how we go about doing what we want to do (the "we" being the citizens of some delineated population) in an environment where larger restrictions (national vs. state) are in play. I have been interested in it since marijuana legislation brought up such fights between national, state and local governments, all of whom were/are jockeying for positions reflecting their constituencies.

The larger philosophical question comes from determinism and the impossibility of making sufficiently detailed rules to cover all situations - hence always allowing for loopholes which can be exploited should the populace need them.

Would this dispute have arisen if (at least some) Texans didn't want to restrict abortion?
marplots is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th March 2016, 11:22 AM   #385
marplots
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 29,167
Originally Posted by twinstead View Post
It's because many people can't be objective about something they personally have strong feelings about and take other viewpoints into consideration. If Texas state legislators feel strongly that abortion is murder and should be outlawed, then work within the constitutional system and hope the majority of Americans eventually agree with you.

Otherwise, don't resort to what Texas is doing now. They're just being aholes about it
They say abortion is murder. Should we believe them?

How might I act if I thought abortion were murder?
marplots is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th March 2016, 12:50 PM   #386
twinstead
Penultimate Amazing
 
twinstead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 12,374
Originally Posted by marplots View Post
They say abortion is murder. Should we believe them?
It's irrelevant what they believe abortion is.

Quote:
How might I act if I thought abortion were murder?
If you were in the Texas legislature, you'd be trying restrict access to legal abortions just like they are I suppose
__________________
You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your INFORMED opinion. No one is entitled to be ignorant. -- Harlan Ellison
twinstead is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th March 2016, 01:12 PM   #387
newyorkguy
Penultimate Amazing
 
newyorkguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: NY
Posts: 11,810
Originally Posted by marplots View Post
...I can, for example, require product labeling in an appeal to public safety (without actually demonstrating it improves safety), and thereby eliminate the ability of people to sell things they have been selling which cannot be so labeled, or only labeled at a prohibitive cost. In general, the cost to the provider is a secondary consideration.
You keep throwing up hypotheticals but you never get to the heart of the argument. Anyway, I don't think the state can require any kind of labeling without demonstrating it is necessary. I was involved in manufacturing for many years -- over-the-counter drugs (among other things) -- and the Food & Drug Administration did expand packaging label requirements. But they were always straight forward about it, explaining why they were requiring it, presenting data to support their conclusion and usually providing a review period where manufacturers could communicate any concerns they had. And more than once, in response to complaints, the FDA backed off and the new reg was modified or cancelled.

Originally Posted by marplots View Post
Would this dispute have arisen if (at least some) Texans didn't want to restrict abortion?
I don't think the law would have been enacted in the first place if Texas was Pro-life. It's possibly the most restricting abortion law of any of the states. It's naive to say you can't see the possibility of an ulterior motive, that the real reason for the law is to try and minimize abortion -- which probably the majority of Texans oppose -- as being the real purpose. Especially when anti-abortion groups themselves affirm that it has become the favored tactic. This is from one of those websites:
Quote:
Pro-Life activities since the early 1990s...[m]ost, if not all, legislative/political activity has centered around not ending abortion once and for all but in only ‘limiting abortion.’.
The Supreme Court has ruled women have a Constitutional right to abortion. The anti-abortion groups have no intention of accepting "their decision - one way or the other - as authoritative."
newyorkguy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th March 2016, 01:38 PM   #388
marplots
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 29,167
Originally Posted by newyorkguy View Post
. It's naive to say you can't see the possibility of an ulterior motive, that the real reason for the law is to try and minimize abortion -- which probably the majority of Texans oppose -- as being the real purpose. Especially when anti-abortion groups themselves affirm that it has become the favored tactic. This is from one of those websites:


The Supreme Court has ruled women have a Constitutional right to abortion. The anti-abortion groups have no intention of accepting "their decision - one way or the other - as authoritative."
Of course it's meant to restrict abortions, or at least reduce the number of abortions. I'm sorry if I implied it was not. Rather, I'm pointing out that Texas is taking advantage of what they see as a loophole to pass legislation their constituency likes. Further, the intent and motivations aren't particularly relevant. I think I covered this. Why? Because if they really did believe the story they've concocted, we wouldn't then say, "Well, of course, we now accept the law should stand." In my opinion, the "motivations" argument is a red herring.

So what does matter? The outcome. That's the metric we can measure and judge, and that's the measure I think/hope the Supreme Court will use.
marplots is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th March 2016, 07:25 PM   #389
newyorkguy
Penultimate Amazing
 
newyorkguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: NY
Posts: 11,810
There is some speculation that Justice Anthony Kennedy may not be inclined to uphold the Texas HB2 law. In oral arguments heard last Wednesday Kennedy seemed to be pointing out that the Texas law had the effect of limiting Texas' women's access to abortion early in their pregnancies. This is from a report in the Washington Post:
Quote:
On Wednesday, as lawyers for the clinics argued the new law placed an "undue burden" on patients, Kennedy appeared concerned about how the abortion climate has shifted in Texas. He asked whether the law encouraged women to get surgical procedures rather than drug-induced abortions, a switch that may indicate some patients are waiting longer to end their pregnancies.

In Texas, Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy pointed out, the number of medical abortions — the method used almost exclusively in early terminations — is falling faster than the surgical procedure, used for most later terminations...“My reading indicated that medical abortions are up nationwide, but down significantly in Texas,” Kennedy said. “This may not be medically wise.” news link
newyorkguy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th March 2016, 08:39 PM   #390
thaiboxerken
Penultimate Amazing
 
thaiboxerken's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 31,823
Originally Posted by marplots View Post
So what does matter? The outcome. That's the metric we can measure and judge, and that's the measure I think/hope the Supreme Court will use.
By that standard, the law should definitely be overturned because all it accomplishes is undue restrictions on abortions without any increase women's health/safety.
__________________
1. He'd never do that. 2. Okay but he's not currently doing it. 3. Okay but he's not currently technically doing it. 4. Okay but everyone does it. 5. He's doing it, we can't stop him, no point in complaining about it. 6. We all knew he was going to do it which... makes it okay somehow. 7. It's perfectly fine that's he's doing it.
thaiboxerken is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th March 2016, 04:30 AM   #391
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 51,470
Originally Posted by marplots View Post
Actually, similar arguments have been made against marijuana restrictions - that the point wasn't patient safety, but stopping the free-flow of medical marijuana. (Allowing prescriptions, but then making it too onerous to actually run a dispensary and provide the weed.)

What makes this abortion thing tricky is the target - not women directly, but medical regulations, something we all agree the government has the right/duty to do.
You clearly don't argue with enough libertarians to see that not everyone agrees to that last bit.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th March 2016, 04:38 AM   #392
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 51,470
Originally Posted by marplots View Post
I think we'd all prefer that some entrepreneurial doctor opens a safe clinic closer to women who need care. But we can't force them to.
But at least we can stop them by having overly onerous restrictions on them. So what would the states evidence be that these actually promote safety instead of giving convenient ways to shut down abortion clinics, and what should they need to prove?
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th March 2016, 05:12 AM   #393
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 51,470
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
Texas does not allow alcohol sales after 12am M-Th in a grocery store. We can't buy liquor in a grocery store. We can consume any alcohol in a bar but only until 2am. Ostensibly, the reason is "public safety." But given more liberal laws in other states and the lack of public safety concerns there, we can conclude that Texas' alcohol laws are actually moral in nature and have nothing to do with -and little impact on- safety. I don't hear anyone fighting in the Supreme Court for my Constitutional right to sell/drink alcohol whenever I please. The right to drink alcohol is a Constitutional right every bit as much as Abortion. Why the big uproar with abortion rights and not alcohol and wouldn't a strike down of Texas' abortion law also implicate its alcohol (gambling, marijuana, etc) laws?
But at least you have people advocating for your rights to open carry firearms while drinking in a bar.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th March 2016, 05:13 AM   #394
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 51,470
Originally Posted by Aridas View Post
5-6 hour round trip is still a fair chunk of time. Personally, I have difficulty driving particularly safely after 2.5 hours of driving, regardless, though, on a good day when I start out well rested. If it were me wanting an abortion, I'd certainly try to at least look into more locally available alternatives.
And it requires you to say have that many hours off when the clinic will be open and means of transport and money for transport.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th March 2016, 05:16 AM   #395
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 51,470
Originally Posted by Sherkeu View Post
You don't need any analogies to see the intent of this law.

A surgical abortion is the same procedure a woman would get if she was being treated for endometriosis, fibroid tumor, molar pregnancy, polyps, or heavy bleeding.
A d&c.
It's a very safe, low-risk procedure. For many uterine conditions.

With this law, when surgery is for the purpose of abortion, it requires all these extra safety requirements.
When it's for another reason, it doesn't.
Same procedure!

It would make more sense that the "non-abortion" uterine procedures have more risk since many of those women are much older and/or have a hysteroscopy at the same time.

But I understand if you guys want to talk about guns and stuff.
Actually I think the abortion procedure is often less invasive and safer than a D&C now. That is an older broadly outdated method.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th March 2016, 05:20 AM   #396
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 51,470
Originally Posted by marplots View Post
It doesn't matter. All that matters is that Texas legislators believe it is safer.
And when texas lawmakers believe that the heliocentric theory is a Jewish conspiracy and make laws as such that is also totally good.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th March 2016, 06:28 AM   #397
thaiboxerken
Penultimate Amazing
 
thaiboxerken's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 31,823
Originally Posted by ponderingturtle View Post
And when texas lawmakers believe that the heliocentric theory is a Jewish conspiracy and make laws as such that is also totally good.
I don't get it. First he was arguing that what they believe doesn't matter, now he's arguing that it does.
__________________
1. He'd never do that. 2. Okay but he's not currently doing it. 3. Okay but he's not currently technically doing it. 4. Okay but everyone does it. 5. He's doing it, we can't stop him, no point in complaining about it. 6. We all knew he was going to do it which... makes it okay somehow. 7. It's perfectly fine that's he's doing it.
thaiboxerken is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th March 2016, 10:08 AM   #398
marplots
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 29,167
Originally Posted by thaiboxerken View Post
I don't get it. First he was arguing that what they believe doesn't matter, now he's arguing that it does.
Two different perspectives. My perspective is that it doesn't matter (or shouldn't) when adjudicating whether the law meets Constitutional requirements, and a second perspective, whether the legislators themselves are outright lying about intent or simply believe they are doing what they claim to be doing.

In the first case, belief doesn't matter when set against outcomes. In the second, it matters to provide a moral justification.

I hope that clears up the difference.
marplots is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th March 2016, 10:12 AM   #399
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 51,470
Originally Posted by marplots View Post
Two different perspectives. My perspective is that it doesn't matter (or shouldn't) when adjudicating whether the law meets Constitutional requirements, and a second perspective, whether the legislators themselves are outright lying about intent or simply believe they are doing what they claim to be doing.
And the supreme court vastly disagrees with you. Intent and impact have overturned lots of laws.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th March 2016, 10:33 AM   #400
marplots
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 29,167
Originally Posted by ponderingturtle View Post
And the supreme court vastly disagrees with you. Intent and impact have overturned lots of laws.
Always paired? I would be greatly surprised to read that intent alone was enough to declare a law unconstitutional when the impact was constitutional. But I live to learn, and I can't claim to know.
marplots is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:28 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.